Excerpt: - - 2. it is, therefore, clearly, found that the plaintiff's damage was contributed to by the plaintiff's own acts and was not caused solely by any acts or omissions on the part of the defendants......plaintiff's suit should have been dismissed. it is found by the district munsif and also by the district judge who adopts his findings in effect that the immediate cause of injury to the plaintiff's walls was not the flowing of water into the drain, but the stagnation of the water and sewage let into it by the plaintiff and the conse-quent corrosion and pressure on the walls of the plaintiff's house. the district judge also says that ' there would have been no stagnation of water had plaintiff, more especially some of his neigh-bours, not let their domestic refuse water into the drain.2. it is, therefore, clearly, found that the plaintiff's damage was contributed to by the plaintiff's own acts and was not caused solely by any acts or omissions on the part of the defendants.3. we,.....

Judgment:

1. Upon the findings it seems clear that the plaintiff's suit should have been dismissed. It is found by the District Munsif and also by the District Judge who adopts his findings in effect that the immediate cause of injury to the plaintiff's walls was not the flowing of water into the drain, but the stagnation of the water and sewage let into it by the plaintiff and the conse-quent corrosion and pressure on the walls of the plaintiff's house. The District Judge also says that ' there would have been no stagnation of water had plaintiff, more especially some of his neigh-bours, not let their domestic refuse water into the drain.

2. It is, therefore, clearly, found that the plaintiff's damage was contributed to by the plaintiff's own acts and was not caused solely by any acts or omissions on the part of the defendants.

3. We, therefore, set aside the decrees of the Courts below and dismiss the plaintiff's suit with costs throughout.